Background
Rickey Lee Whitley was charged with two counts of rape and one count of first-degree terroristic threatening arising from an encounter with Treasure Forte in July 2022. Forte testified that Whitley offered to help her find a place to stay, led her to a secluded wooded area, became angry when she tried to leave, choked her, and threatened to kill her and slit her throat if she did not obey him.
Forte testified that, fearing Whitley would kill her, she performed oral sex and then engaged in vaginal intercourse with him. She fled to a grocery store and called 911. An officer observed scratches on her neck, and DNA testing matched Whitley’s profile to DNA found on rectal swabs collected during Forte’s sexual-assault examination. A jury convicted Whitley on all counts, and the circuit court imposed concurrent twenty-year sentences for the rape convictions and a consecutive fifteen-year sentence for terroristic threatening.
The Court’s Holding
The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. Forte’s testimony that Whitley used physical force, choked her, and threatened to kill or slit her throat if she did not comply was substantial evidence that both the oral and vaginal sex acts occurred through forcible compulsion. Her testimony alone could support the rape convictions, and the jury was entitled to credit it despite claimed inconsistencies.
The court also held that the evidence supported first-degree terroristic threatening. Whitley’s statements that he would kill Forte and slit her throat, made while assaulting and raping her, constituted substantial evidence of a threat to cause death or serious physical injury with the purpose of terrorizing her. The State did not need to prove that Whitley had a weapon or an immediate ability to carry out the threat.
Key Takeaways
- A rape victim’s testimony alone may constitute substantial evidence supporting a rape conviction.
- Forcible compulsion includes physical force and express or implied threats of death or physical injury.
- Appellate courts do not reweigh evidence or reassess witness credibility resolved by the jury.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that a defendant’s asserted consent defense does not warrant reversal where the victim’s testimony, credited by the jury, establishes force and threats. It also confirms that a terroristic-threatening conviction does not require a weapon, an explicit verbal threat, or proof that the defendant could immediately execute the threatened harm.